APTA Peer Review Report

AMERICAN
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

PEER REVIEW

FOR

Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation

Honolulu, HI

January 2017

A service of the American Public Transportation Association
performed by the
North American Transit Services Association,
a wholly owned subsidiary of APTA
FINAL REPORT

OF THE

NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT SERVICES ASSOCIATION

PEER REVIEW PANEL

ON THE

PROJECT TECHNICAL CAPACITY AND CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION
Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
Panel Members.2

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 3
Scope of Report .............................................................................................................................. 3
Peer Review Focus Areas3

Observations and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 4
Opening Comments.........4
1.0 Technical Management Capacity and Capability..4
2.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION6
3.0 CHANGE ORDER PROCESS AND CLAIMS MANAGEMENT....10
4.0 OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...15
Concluding Remarks16
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Peer Review Request Letter ......................................................................................................... 18
Peer Review Agenda ..................................................................................................................... 21
Document List ............................................................................................................................... 24

NATSA Peer Review Report
Project Technical Capacity and Contract Administration HART
INTRODUCTION

In September 2016, Mr. Mike. Formby, Interim CEO of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transit contacted the North American Transportation Services Association (NATSA) to request a
peer review of the agencys large capital rail project.

Through discussions between NATSA and Agency staff, it was determined the review
would be conducted January 9-13, 2017.

A panel of industry peers was assembled that provided expertise in management of
large capital programs, contract administration and change order/claims management. The
peer review panel consisted of the following transit individuals.

Peer Review Panel Members

Jack Collins
Chief Capital Officer (retired)
Metrolinx/ GO Transit

Carolyn Gonot
Director, Engineering & Transportation Infrastructure Development
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Mysore Nagaraja
Principal
Mysore Nagaraja Consulting, LLC
NYMTA President of Capital Construction (retired)

Randy Clarke
Peer Review Facilitator, VP of Member Services
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

The panel convened in Honolulu, HI on January 9, 2017. Panel coordination and
logistical support was provided by NATSA Staff Advisor Randy Clarke. All team members also
coordinated and provided input in the drafting of this peer review report. Mr. Sam Carnaggio,
Project Director, provided agency liaison support on behalf of HART.
2

Methodology

The NATSA Peer Review process is well established as a valuable resource to the public
transport industry. Highly experienced and respected transit professionals, selected on the
basis of their subject matter expertise, voluntarily provide their time and support to address
the scope required.

The panel conducted this peer review through documentation review, field observations
and a series of briefings, listening sessions and interviews with HART and consultant staff from
all levels within the organization as well as contracted support. The panel concluded its review
with a summary of observations and recommendations to Board Chair Damien Kim, Board Vice-
Chair Terrence Lee, Interim CEO K.N. Murthy, Deputy CEO Brennon Morioka and Project
Director Sam Carnaggio.

Scope of Report

The scope of this review focused on HARTs rail project, specifically the staff/consultant
technical capacity to manage the project and the overall contract administration of the project.
The observations and findings provided through this peer review are offered as an industry
resource to be considered by HART in support of strengthening the organizations management
and delivery of the rail project.

Peer Review Focus Areas
Technical Management Capacity and Capability
Contract Administration
Change Order Process and Claims Management
Other Observations and Recommendations
3

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OPENING COMMENTS

The project, once complete, will significantly improve mobility throughout Honolulu.
HART staff and consultant staff are engaged and want the project to be successful but staff
retention is a challenge.
HART leadership is managing through historic issues both in contracting decisions as well as
delay -based claims.
The project sections that have completed construction or are under construction appear to
be of good quality and have been well designed for future operations.
Legal challenges and previous contracting decisions have had a significant impact on claims,
budget and schedule.
HART and local and state leaders are in the process of resolving long term funding in
conjunction with the development of the FTA FFGA Recovery Plan.
The Project Management Plan (PMP) exists but is not formally updated consistently and
therefore does not appear to be a primary document used to manage the project.

1.0 Technical Management Capacity and Capability

The NATSA panel had a series of interviews over three days and at each meeting and
interview the panel engaged the attendees on the topic of technical capacity and capability. In
a review of the Project Management Plan, formally updated on July 17, 2012, the panel noted
that the project organization is different than what is currently in place, which often happens
once the project gets started and project management balances skills with delivery timeframes.
In light of that, the panel made the following observations and recommendations.

1.1 Observations

The majority of the staff are enthusiastic and doing the best they can considering the
historic issues they are managing. Staff seems compromised in their ability to deliver the
work going forward while also handling previous and outstanding issues resulting from past
decisions.
Current Executive Management has extensive experience delivering large rail infrastructure
projects. The current CEO and the Project Director both have excellent experience for
delivering a project like HART, but it should be noted that the CEO is interim, anticipated to
have a one-year presence on the project.
The HART Project team appears to be a positive blend of rail technical staff and local
construction management knowledge. The experience of building a mega rail transit
project is heavily brought by the consultant professional services supplemented and
complimented by the staff with local knowledge of the stakeholder and processes.
4

The frequency of staff turnover is high and impacts project delivery. This often leads to key
management positions that are vacant and working knowledge of past activities diminished.
The Project Controls team is competent but does not have much depth based on size and
complexity of the project. In addition, the Project Controls team appear to be taxed with
additional responsibilities related to the Recovery Plan.
Key decisions will need to be made soon for future O&M operations, particularly in regards
to the roles of HART and the City/County. These decisions will influence hiring of key transit
O&M oversight staff.
The requirements to have one-year personal services contracts for HART staff appears to
impact recruitment and retention. The current process does not provide HART staff a
guarantee of employment year to year even though the role is required on going during
project delivery.

1.2 Recommendations

Success of projects of the complexity and magnitude of HARTs Rail System depend heavily on
the strength and competence of the management organization. Our team strongly
recommends that HART takes the following steps immediately:

The Director of Design and Construction is vacant and is a key positions to urgently fill.
Executive management should focus on strengthening the Project Controls team with
additional experienced staff focused on scheduling, cost estimation, and trend reporting.
Management should update the master staffing plan for overall project completion that
includes the interim revenue service date, as well as the full lines revenue service date,
including bringing on the appropriate staffing for service testing and pre-revenue
operations
The Board, with the support of management, should analyze options related to the one year
personal services contract vs. Civil Service employment to assist with recruitment and
retention, especially for critical positions. This action would include taking necessary steps
to retain key employees and managers for the duration of the project as continuity of
personnel is a key to success.
HART and City/County should determine long term O&M framework to influence decision
on type of CEO to lead HART to successful delivery and revenue service. The focus of the
CEO over the next five years will be the construction of the project. In addition, the CEO will
be preparing for anticipated interim service beginning in 2020, which will be contracted but
based on recent ballot decisions, would be managed or operated by the City/County.
HARTs role in revenue service seems undetermined.
The current project organization is not reflected in the Project Management Plan (PMP).
HART should re-evaluate project organization in support of project delivery and update the
PMP.
HART may want to analyze creating a separate Claims Department to resolve past claims
which will allow the project team to focus on project delivery. The project team has to
5

expend resources to resolve claims and anticipated claims at a level higher than anticipated
during project delivery based on historical issues. These efforts can impede staff in their
ability to deliver the project efficiently. A separate department to focus on the claims and
coordinate with the delivery team may allow appropriate focus on for all project team
members.

2.0 Contract Administration

The APTA Panel met with the Director of Procurement, Director of Contract Administration,
senior staff from the Design and Construction group and key staff from both groups. The two
Directors discussed the interdependence and working relationships between all three groups.
Common to most transit agencies, the Procurement group takes the lead in contract
development (terms and conditions, selection criteria, legal reviews, etc.) and ultimately the
recommendation to award. Once contracts are awarded by the Contract Administration group
support the day to day execution of the contract in the field by the Design and Construction
group.

It was noted that the Manager of Design and Construction recently retired from HART, and the
impact of this vacancy is having an impact on the communications between Procurement,
Contracts Administration and Design and Construction Groups. The Panel questioned how the
group communicates contract related issues? Staff noted that the retired Manager of Design
and Construction held regular meetings with the three groups that enhanced communications
and issue identification and resolution. These meetings were suspended during the holidays but
have resumed.

Another concern was the absence of the Manager of Project Controls at the Contract
Administration interview. A separate meeting was held with this group to explore the
interaction between Contract Administration and Project Controls and these project controls
observations are included in this Contract Administration and Change Order Process sections.

6

2.1 Observations

Procedures1 and scheduling programs being used to manage the project2 are
comparable to industry best business practices utilized for large transit infrastructure
projects. However, the reporting of recognized increases in cost trends and claims exposure
related to past construction delays appears out of date.

Contractors are not supplying schedules and re-baseline schedule updates to HART per
contract requirements. At contract award, detailed contract schedules utilizing Oracle P6
software are required to be submitted and approved by HART within 210 days of Notice to
Proceed. These approved contract schedules are not in place for recently awarded station
contracts and the airport segment. Where contractors are late in submitting monthly
updates or the original baseline schedule, contractor progress payments are being withheld
until submitted. However, this leaves HART somewhat exposed for having accurate
schedule progress data. The Construction Management team is updating monthly schedule
progress without contractor concurrence, which could lead to future contract disputes.
Getting both parties to agree to the baseline contract schedules and monthly updates needs
to be accomplished.

The Master Project Schedule exists but is not fully accurate without project specific
schedule updates. The Panel reviewed the current Master Project Schedule Summary dated
November 25, 2016. We are concerned that the logic ties from the detailed contract
schedules are not sufficiently rolling-up into the monthly Program Master Schedule. It is of
critical importance that key contractor logic ties are tied to the Master Project Schedule in
order to determine if delays to construction schedules impact the critical path to complete
the overall project, or have ripple impacts on other contracts, such as the Core Systems
contract that includes an Operations and Maintenance component.

The Master Project Schedule is not being shared and reviewed with all project team
members. While a Summary Master Program Summary is provided in Monthly Progress
Reports, it is important that more detailed monthly schedule updates be reviewed by the
entire project team in accordance with the Update Process included in approved
procedures.

An approved re-baseline program budget and schedule are needed now.

COST CONTROL PROCEDURE 4.PC-07, REV. 2.0 APRIL 18, 2016

1
2
PROJECT SCHEDULING PROCEDURE 4.PC-04, REV. 3.0 SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
7

Exhibit 1 Master Project Schedule Update Monthly Update Process 3
3
PROJECT SCHEDULING PROCEDURE 4.PC-04, REV. 3.0 SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
8

There is evidence that a Recovery and Financial Plan update are being developed. A number
of implementation scenarios are being explored. A new plan must be finalized and
approved by the HART Board as soon as possible to get the project back on track. The Panel
reviewed the December 1, 2016 DRAFT Update of the Financial Plan for Full Funding Grant
Agreement 4 requested by the FTA and being prepared by HART. We also reviewed The
HART Interim Plan5 (The Recovery Plan) dated September 30, 2016. Both of these plans will
form a critical strategy for the successfully completion and phased opening of the project.
The re-baselined budget and schedule that result from these plans, once approved, are
desperately needed by the Project Team.

Various consultant contracts will expire before the 2025 project completion which may
impact institutional knowledge transfer and project commissioning.

2.2 Recommendations

Master Project Schedule needs to be proactively shared with all project team
stakeholders to create a sense of a team schedule
HART should have one Master Project Schedule and Budget and Project Controls
is responsible for maintaining it
Distribute Master Schedule updates to Project Team on monthly basis.

HART should analyze impact on consultant contract expirations and options to ensure
this issue is managed proactively

Establish a monthly Project Trend Report Meeting that is focused on cost, schedule and
quality

HART should consider measures to force contractors to meet contract requirement to
supply a schedule and timely updates

Team to improve communication and collaboration and cooperation (3 Cs)

Project Team to keep PMP updated and used as the overarching plan to manage the
project

Benchmark project staff size in relation to other major rail projects

4
HART DRAFT Update of the Financial Plan for Full Funding Grant Agreement, Updated December 1, 2016
5
HART Interim Plan, Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), September 30, 2016

9

3.0 Change Order Process and Claims Management
The APTA Panel met with the Director of Procurement, Director of Contract
Administration and Change and two Construction Managers from the Design and Construction
group that are managing awarded contracts for East and West Areas. The Deputy of
Procurement was also present to discuss legal support for active claims.

A follow-up meeting was held with the Director and Deputy Director of Projects
Controls, Director of Special Projects (Risk Management) and the Lead Project Scheduler to
better understand Project Controls role in supporting the Change Order Process and how cost
and schedule implications of changes and claims are recognized in cost and schedule updates.
The Panel explored the Contract Change Procedure6 with staff and the working relationships
between Procurement, Legal, Contracts Administration, Design and Construction and Project
Controls.

3.1 Observations

The team is using industry standard processes and procedures to manage claims and
change orders. The Panel reviewed the Contract Change Order Process Flowchart shown in
Exhibit 2 to validate that procedures were being followed by staff. The Director of Contracts
Administration and Change walked the Panel through the initial steps of change order
review from a Contractor Request for Change, Finding of Merit, Technical Review to issue of
RFC, preparation of an Independent Cost Estimate, Schedule and Time Impact Analysis.

The interplay between project team members was evident to the Panel. Of concern is the
important role that the Director of Design and Construction plays in validating technical
merit and the initial Negotiation Strategy Memo and Independent Cost Estimate for HART in
advance of contractor negotiations by the HART Project Manager.

6
Contract Change Procedure, 5.CA-11, Rev. 2.0, September 16, 2016
10

Exhibit 2 Contractor Change Order Process Flowchart (1 of 2)7

Exhibit 2 Contractor Change Order Process Flowchart (2 of 2)
7
HART Contract Change Procedure, 5.CA-11, Rev. 2.0, September 16, 2016, p.16-17
11

A review of Project Costs by Contract dated 11/25/16 indicates that change orders (both
already executed and pending) to original contract value ratios for contracts DB-120, DB-
200 and DBOM-920 are far in excess of normal industry standards (36% for DB-120; 43% for
12

DB-200 and 16.1% for DBOM-920). This appears to be due to contracting decisions made
previously. Other contracts on the list seem to be in initial stages of construction.
The Project Management Plan (PMP) is a very effective tool to manage mega-projects and is
therefore a requirement by FTA. The PMP should be used as a Roadmap for the project
from initiation to the end. The PMP should be used as a living document and must be
updated periodically (recommend quarterly) to reflect current state of the projects
progress. The peer review team observed that the PMP has not been updated since 2011
and strongly recommend that HART requires the project management team to update the
same immediately and to take advantage of PMP updates in the future to actively manage
the project. We recommend that the Board and the Executive management of HART makes
this mandatory.
Many of the claims appear to be the result of previous contracting or policy decisions and
not related to current project management.

The potential of additional claims related to delays or future contract sequencing exist. The
Project Controls group provided the Panel with a copy of the HART Forecast Costs by
Contract with Details for the month of November 20168. The internal report identifies
original contract amounts, approved change orders, pending changes, probable changes,
possible issues and a forecasted cost at completion. The report is a good tool for indicating
change and potential change traffic as well as potential issues.

Three external firms have been recently procured to concentrate on claims.

Project Controls procedures on cost and schedule reporting reflect best practices.

Risk Register and Risk Assessment process follow industry best practice and FTA guidance
for large projects.

The Change Control Board that is referenced in Contingency Management Plan was disband
in 2012. The Contingency Management Plan set out procedures for establishing a Change
Control Board. We believe that the CCB is critical to managing change and should be staffed
by the Directors of Procurement, Contract Management and Change, Project Controls and
Design and Construction.

Supporting documentation for change orders include contractor initial proposal and final
negotiated amount. Changes in excess of $1 million require Board approval. The Panel
reviewed three Change Order approvals submitted to the HART Board of Directors for
approval. While we respect the need for transparency in public documents, we are
concerned that information is provided on the initial contractor claim, HARTs Independent
Cost Estimate, and the final negotiated amount. While all this documentation is part of
getting to a final resolution, we believe the best business practice it to only disclose the final
negotiated amount to the Board and public. Our concern stems from contractors using this
8
HART Forecast Costs by Contract with Details, Report Cut-off Date: November 26, 2016
13

information to develop pricing and negotiation strategies that might work against the better
interests of HART.

3.2 Recommendations

HART may want to analyze impacts on proactively de-scoping current construction contracts
or reaching a global settlement on change orders/claims to minimize future risk concerns.

HART may want to consider using a Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) to facilitate solutions
with their contractors. Ideally a DRB on large complex contracts results in dispute
avoidance. We understand that DRB language has been added into the Airport Guideway &
Stations Design Build contract. Although the Panel did not review the contract language, in
discussions with Procurement and Contracts it appears to be more of a process for flagging
potential disputes and elevating them up in the contractors and HART organizations for
resolution. This large contract in excess of $800 million would benefit from a formal DRB
process where each party selects a DRB member to represent them and then both agree on
a third neutral member. The DRB is usually selected from retired industry leaders from the
transit and construction industry. The Panel views this as a proactive claims avoidance tool
that will be helpful in reducing future claims exposure.

In order to ensure that cost and schedule Impacts for ongoing work and for future contracts
are minimized, peer review team strongly recommends that HART dedicate a group of
design engineers and contract administration team to do a thorough review of designs and
contracts for remaining work on existing contracts and for future contracts. HART may also
opt to have Claims consultants to be part of this review team.
Analyze creating a separate Claims Department to resolve past claims which will allow the
project team to focus on project delivery. Some Construction Management staff have taken
on new contract assignments, yet are still burdened with resolving past claims resulting
from the injunction delays and utility relocation and permit delays. The Panel recommends
reorganizing HART resources to take on the work load associated with past claims to allow
HART PMs and CMs to focus on delivery on new contracts and claims avoidance.

Reestablish a Change Control Board and incorporate into Contract Change Procedure.

Best industry practice does not include contractors initial proposal or the owners ICE in the
board change order approval documents.

The CEO change order authorization level is adequate for the West Side project but the East
Side project scope and size may warrant adjustments.

4.0 Other Observations and Recommendations

Establish a more holistic approach to a HART Corporate Risk Register that covers staffing,
reputation and long term O&M.

14

Evaluate impact on long term asset health based on contractors maintenance regime and
use of technology. The length of a maintenance contract will impact the investment the
contractor makes in ensuring asset life beyond the contract requirements.

HART and HECO have improved the process for designing, estimating and executing utility
relocations. This relationship and cooperation is key for the City Center component of the
project and should be a closely managed element for the HART leadership team.

Build and implement an outreach strategy that fosters credibility with the public.

Ensure the Construction Mitigation Plan specifically for the City Center Project is proactively
managed. This plan includes engagement with community groups, businesses, local elected
officials and abutters. This should proactively manage dust, noise, traffic and other
construction related impacts.

15

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The findings of this review are intended to assist HART in strengthening their ability to
manage and execute the rail project. The panel sincerely appreciates the support and
assistance extended throughout the entire peer review process by all HART and consultant
personnel. The panel stands available to assist with any clarification or subsequent support that
may be needed.

16


APPENDIX

17

Appendix A
CMS-AP00-01794
HONOLULU AUTHORITY tor RAPID TRANSPORTATI ON September 8, 2016

R
Colleen Hanabusa, CHAIR

Damien T.K. Kim VICE CHAIR
Mr. Richard A. White George I. Atta John Henry
Acting President & CEO Felix Ford N. Fuchigami
American Public Transportation Association Terri Fujii William "Buzz"
1300 I Street NW Hong Terrence M. Lee
Colbert M. Matsumoto
Suite 1200 East
Washington, D.C. 20005
Subject: Request for an American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Peer

Review
Thank you for our conversation on Friday, September 2, 2016, in which we at the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transportation (HART) expressed our interest in having the APTA provide a peer review for our project, the
Honolulu Rapid Transit Project (HRTP). At the end of the day, our goal is to receive a report that addresses
what we can do better to successfully finish this project.
Having received APTA's e-mail conveying the Peer Review Guidelines dated July 2016 and having reviewed
these guidelines, HART hereby formally requests a peer review. In accordance with your guidelines, HART
is requesting that the peer review focus on:
Management capacity and capability. Review PMSC, GEC and CE&I roles, appropriateness of manning
levels and functionality of HART's organizational structure given DB contracts;
Contract administration. Assess strength of organization and opportunities to improve
management;
Change order process/claims management. Assess organizational structure and
opportunities for efficiency and improved functionality.
Additionally, HART would ask the Peer Review team to note any other areas of concern they believe should be
brought to HART's attention.
As the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has requested that HART have APTA provide the peer review as a
part of HART's Recovery Plan for the project, the preferred dates for the peer review are for it to be performed
as soon as possible and to have it completed before the end of the year. As requested in APTA's guidelines,
HART's staff liaison will be Charles (Sam) Carnaggio, Project Director for HART. His direct office number is
(808) 768-6283, cell number (808) 464-5544, and e-mail address ccarnaggio@honolulu. gov. Enclosed is a
signed "Letter of Indemnification" as stated in the guidelines.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Alu Place, Suite 1700, 1099 Alakea Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808)768-6159 Fax: (808)768-5110 www.honolulutrans1t.org
18

Mr. Richard A. White, Acting President & CEO

Page 2
September 8, 2016
Thank you for processing HART's request. We look forward to your response. If any additional
information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me at (808) 282-7961 or e-mail me at
mformby@honolulu.gov.
Very truly yours,
Michael D. Formby
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
cc: Mayor Kirk Caldwell

Council Chair Ernest Y. Martin
& Councilmembers
Ms. Colleen Hanabusa, Chair
HART Board of Directors
Ms. Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator
FTA
Mr. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Admi nistrator
FTA Region 9 Office
Mr. Randy Clark, Acting Vice President, Member Services
APTA
Mr. Charles S.Carnaggio, Project Director
HART
19

Appendix A
A PTA PEER REVIEW PRO G RA M
This is to acknowledge that the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART)
(transportation organization) has requested the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) to provide for Transportation Organization Peer Review services
through APTA's wholly owned subsidiary, the North American Transit Services
Association (NATSA) in accordance with the APTA Peer Review Program Guidelines.
APTA 's Peer Review Program is designed to assist transportation organizations in

addressing public transportation-related needs and issues through subject matter experts
within the public transportation industry. Through the coordination by APTA and NATSA and
the support of their respective own organizations, the subject matter experts convene at
the requesting public transportation organization and conduct an intensive review of the
issues to be addressed. Peer Review participation is conducted by mutual consensus and
through industry acknowledgement that this service is an extremely valuable resource to
strengthening and enhancing public transportation functions and effectiveness. The APTA
Peer Reviews follow the format as described in the APTA Peer Review Guidelines.
The observations and recommendations as provided through the APTA Peer Review
process are provided in good faith and as based upon the experience and skills of the
Review panelists. The APTA Peer Review does not, nor is it meant to, represent a full
organizational review. The Peer Review is intended to be used as a resource that, in
conjunction with other assessment tools, can assist the requesting organization to evaluate
their particular needs and issues.
Indemnification: To the extent permitted by law, the Public Transportation Organization agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless APTA and NATSA, its officers and employees, and any Peer
Review panelists and their respective agencies in the conduct of their activities for claims of
any kind (including attorney fees) arising out of the provision of this Peer Review, except to
the extent such claims arise or are caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of
APTA, NATSA, its officers and employees, or Peer Review panelists.
The undersigned, duly authorized representative of the Public Transportation Organization

agrees to the terms of the provision of this Peer Review service.
Transportation Organization
By: Date:
Michael D. Formby
Acting Executive Director
Signature - Name and Title of
Authorized Representative
20

Appendix B

APTA Peer Review for the
HRTP Project Review
January 9 to 13, 2017

Agenda
NOTE:
1. All times shown are an approximation
2. HARTs offices are at 1099 Alakea Street. Check in is required with receptionist and main offices
are on the 17th floor.
3. The APTA Peer Review Team will be located on the 23rd floor with the Project Management team.
4. HART has a meeting room for the project review team with a screen, projector, easels, flip chart,
and marker pens at all times in the meeting room
5. HART has a Wi-Fi connection at all times in the meeting room
6. HART has a photocopying facility at meeting location
7. For site visits, HART will provide PPE. (except boots)
8. HART daily primary contact is Sam Carnaggio at 808-464-5544 (cell). Call any time.
Secretary is Donna Lloyd at 808-768-6152.

Sunday January 8, 2017
Various times Peer review team to arrive in Honolulu, HI.
Members to make their own ground transportation arrangements to the hotel.
6:30 pm Peer review team members that are present can meet in hotel lobby for a get
acquainted dinner.
Monday January 9, 2017
6:30 am Peer review team briefing in the lobby of hotel
7:00 am Peer review team to meet HART Executive Management (Board Chair Damien
Kim, CEO K.N. Murthy, Deputy CEO Brennon Morioka and Project Director
Sam Carnaggio) at Liliha Bakery, 580 N. Nimitz Highway, Honolulu for Working
Breakfast. Topics to include: Peer Review Overview 1) scope of work, 2) peer
review process and 3) schedule.
8:45 am Check in at HART HQ. 1099 Alakea Street, Honolulu
A parking garage is available next to the building. After parking, take elevator to
lobby. Take doors on left to building elevators. Go to 17th floor to check in.
9:00 am Peer review team to meet with CEO K.N. Murthy for his impressions after one
month on site to include political issues.
9:30 am Peer review team to meet with Deputy CEO Brennon Morioka for local
environment, local regulatory issues and history of Project.
10:30 am Peer review team to meet with senior project management to discuss current
status of HRTP to include overview, schedule and budget (23rd floor) HART
Project Director Sam Carnaggio
21
Technical Capacity and Contract Administration HART
12:30 pm Lunch
2:00 pm Meet with technical project management team to review PMSC, GEC and CE&I
roles and discuss organizational structure. To include staff levels, technical
expertise, and future operational considerations. HART Project Director Sam
Carnaggio
5:00 pm End of Day 1
7:00 pm Optional Dinner with HART team
Peer review members
Strategize work plan for Tuesday
Tuesday January 10, 2017

7:30 am Breakfast in the hotel
9:00 am Check in at HART HQ. Go to 23rd floor.
9:15 am Meetings with contract administration staff to review organizational roles and
responsibilities related to administrative controls. This to include review of SOPs
and policies related to all aspects of contract awards, contract oversight and
controls. HART Procurement-Nicole Chapman, HART Design In- Tae Lee,
HART Construction Kai Nani Kraut (West) and Kevin Cox (East)
12:00 noon Lunch at meeting location
1:30 pm Meeting with HART personnel and consultants to review change order process
and controls. To include interactions between field staff, office staff and project
management on how change orders are requested, approved and executed. HART
Change Management Brian Kelleher
3:00 pm Meeting with FTAs Project Management Oversight (PMO) Contractor Jacobs
Engineering Tim Mantych and Bill Tsforias
7:00 pm Dinner (Location TBD)
Peer review members
Strategize work plan for Wednesday
Wednesday January 11, 2017

7:30 am Breakfast in the hotel
9:00 am Meeting with HART personnel and consultants to review claims management
with concentration on current resolution process and areas for improvement.
HART Procurement Nicole Chapman/Lori Miyasaki
10:30 am Transport to review a Project alignment and Maintenance Service Facility. HART
Acting Chief Safety and Security Officer Ralph McKinney
1:30 pm Continue with physical tour including on-site meetings or discussions with field
personnel on technical capacity of project team and overall contract oversight
from a field staff perspective. HART Construction Kai Nani Kraut
If time permits, peer review team to caucus

7:00 pm Dinner (Location TBD)
22

Peer review members

Strategize work plan for Wednesday
Thursday January 12, 2017

7:30 am Breakfast in hotel
9:00 am Check in HART HQ
9:15 am Peer review team meets with HART personnel to discuss field visit and to obtain
any additional information requested during the review period. HART Project
Director Sam Carnaggio
12:30 pm Peer review team deliberation and presentation preparation
7:00 pm Dinner (TBD)
Peer review members
Discuss findings of the day
Friday January 13, 2017

7:30 am Breakfast in hotel
9:15 am Peer review team prepare for exit conference presentation
10:30 am Exit conference briefing and Q&A with HART Executive Management Team.
Board Chair Damien Kim, Board Vice-Chair Terrance Lee, CEO K.N. Murthy,
Deputy CEO Brennon Morioka and Project Director Sam Carnaggio
12:00 pm Peer Review concludes

23

Appendix C
DOCUMENT LIST
1. HART Organization Charts; Full Organization; December 28, 2016

2. HART Program Controls Department Organization Chart; December 11, 2016
3. HART East Section Construction Engineering & Inspection Organization Chart; January
9, 2016
4. HART West Section Construction Engineering & Inspection Organization Chart;
November 1, 2016
5. HART General Engineering Consultant Support Organization Chart; June 1, 2016
6. PMOC December 2016 Quarterly Report
7. HART Board of Directors Monthly Report December 2016
8. Master Project Schedule Summary, Design & Construction Contracts, As of: November
25, 2016
9. Master Project Schedule Summary, (Draft Longest Path), December 8, 2016
10. Master Project Schedule Summary, (Draft Target Date), January 6, 2017
11. COST CONTROL PROCEDURE 4.PC-07, REV. 2.0 APRIL 18, 2016
12. PROJECT SCHEDULING PROCEDURE 4.PC-04, REV. 3.0 SEPTEMBER 20,
2016
13. Contract Packaging Plan, HART July 3, 2012
14. Project Management Plan, HART July 17, 2012
15. Operations and Maintenance Plan, HART -- September 27, 2016
16. Risk and Contingency Management Plan, HART -- September 26, 2011
17. Contingency Management Plan, HART 4.PC, Rev. 1.0 April 19, 2012
18. Mitigation Monitoring Plan, HART September 24, 2015
19. Configuration Management Plan, HART Rev. 2.0 November 6, 2015
20. Interface Management Plan, HART March 7, 2016
21. HART Safety and Security Management Plan October 6, 2015
22. Contract Change Procedure, HART, 5.CA-11, Rev. 2.0 September 16, 2016
23. Claims Avoidance Plan, HART March 5, 2012
24. HART Financial Plan for FFGA -- December 19, 2012
25. HART DRAFT Update of the Financial Plan for Full Funding Grant Agreement, Updated
December 1, 2016
26. Cost Risk Assessment Report, HART August 10, 2016
27. Three Board Approved Change Order Documents November-December 2016
28. HART Interim Plan, Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), September 30,
2016
29. HART Forecast Costs by Contract with Details, Report Cut-off Date: November 25, 2016
24

APTA Peer Review Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

APTA Peer Review Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMERICAN

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation

Change Order Process and Claims Management

Other Observations and Recommendations

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COST CONTROL PROCEDURE 4.PC-07, REV. 2.0 APRIL 18, 2016

Exhibit 1 Master Project Schedule Update Monthly Update Process 3

3.0 Change Order Process and Claims Management

Exhibit 2 Contractor Change Order Process Flowchart (1 of 2)7

Exhibit 2 Contractor Change Order Process Flowchart (2 of 2)

HONOLULU AUTHORITY tor RAPID TRANSPORTATI ON September 8, 2016

Colleen Hanabusa, CHAIR

Subject: Request for an American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Peer

Mr. Richard A. White, Acting President & CEO

Very truly yours,

cc: Mayor Kirk Caldwell

A PTA PEER REVIEW PRO G RA M

APTA 's Peer Review Program is designed to assist transportation organizations in

The undersigned, duly authorized representative of the Public Transportation Organization

Tuesday January 10, 2017

Wednesday January 11, 2017

If time permits, peer review team to caucus

Peer review members

Thursday January 12, 2017

Friday January 13, 2017

12:00 pm Peer Review concludes

1. HART Organization Charts; Full Organization; December 28, 2016

You might also like